The Next Step for Detroit

As I mentioned in my note on the 2010 Canadian International Auto Show, I'm very impressed with the latest products from Ford. What I didn't explicitly mention is that the friend I attended with and I often made a beeline for the stands occupied by the Big Three. We both drive imports, but we were both interested to see how the latest domestics were. We were largely impressed with what Detroit had to offer. The Lincoln MKS and MKZ, Ford Fusion, Fiesta, and new Focus, Buick Regal and LaCrosse, Ford Flex, Chevrolet Equinox, Cadillac SRX, and Dodge Challenger were all either particularly impressive or represented good efforts on the behalf of their respective manufacturers.

The Ford Taurus, Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Cruze, and GMC Terrain SUV were all decent enough. Most disappointingly, however, the Chevrolet Impala and Malibu, Buick Lucerne, and all the midsize and large Chryslers were all very much reminiscent of what the American manufacturers were building ten years ago. These aforementioned cars (the Impala in particular) are all huge sellers. What every car I've just mentioned lacks, however, is an intrinsic "American-ness." A properly American car needs a name with flair, exciting styling, power and room to spare, and solid build quality. What I will attempt to do is to outline what the Big Three ought to do to restore this elusive quality to their product lineups.

In 2006, when Buick replaced the Park Avenue, they named their newest large slushboat sedan "Lucerne." An American car should not, in any circumstance, be named after a quaint Swiss town (note that there was never a Pontiac Geneva or a Mercury Zurich.) Considering that it sits on architecture that is, to say the least, aged, the Lucerne has sold incredibly well. I'm still left scratching my head, however, as to why GM didn't give the big Buick a better name. In the past, the Tri-Shield has marketed cars with some of the following illustrious names:

• Roadmaster
• Riviera
• Century/Centurion
• Wildcat
• Skyhawk
• Electra
• Bolero (show car)

I'd be much more likely to buy a Lucerne were it called "Electra" or "Centurion." And "LaCrosse" What kind of a name is that? Who names a car after a Native American game designed to be essentially war simulation? Couldn't the latest mid-range Buick have been called "Bolero"? The name fits the design, I think. If Buick really is trying to appeal to younger customers, give it a name that implies a powerful history and a racy future. "LaCrosse" makes me think of jocks and a company grasping at straws to connect with the under-forty crowd. To be fair, Ford did revive the Taurus name (although it does have some uninspiring connotations), was going to call the Fusion the Futura, and almost sold the Flex as the Fairlane. But why is Chevrolet selling the Cruze (what is a Cruze anyway -- a boat-trip for the illiterate, perhaps?) rather than the "Biscayne"? Why does Chrysler have the Sebring? There are surely better names in existence for a mid-size family car. Perhaps I'm a little nostalgic, but it seems to me that a proper American car should have an emotive name. And no, "Aveo" doesn't cut it.

Similarly, Detroit needs a styling revolution. The latest Lincolns are an improvement, but the monstrous shiny proboscis of the Ford Fusion does a lot to harm what is otherwise a decent design. It's hard to pinpoint what makes a design "American." Whatever the case may be, a properly domestic car needs a certain flair, a certain swagger, and certain embodiment of our unique, Western way of life. Tacking chrome onto a design that is otherwise understated and "European" doesn't make any car properly American. Likewise, crafting the sheet metal with a chisel (CTS) makes the car neither exciting nor attractive. The Chrysler 300 was a good effort, but it's always been just a little awkward. I'm hoping the 2012 re-boot of the LX cars will rectify this and give us designs that are similar in spirit to, but somewhat more refined than those found on the current models.

Personally, I'm all for a revival of discreet tailfins (Lancia tried it out on the Kappa in the '90s, so such a renaissance wouldn't be without precedent.) A pair of thin dorsals could be just the thing to set aside the current Malibu from the competition. The current low-roof trend isn't that offensive, but all the American manufacturers could design more fluid rooflines. The nation that incubated the fastback should never have produced the awkwardly roofed Chrysler Sebring (Mk II). In this sense, the aforementioned Buick Lucerne (Electra?) is a bit of a winner: the trunkline is gentle and elegant, even if it does look a little like what one would find on a 1997 Toyota Camry. The current trend of slapping oceans of chrome on otherwise pedestrian cars (the aforementioned Fusion; most other Fords save for the Mustang and, possibly, the Taurus) has also got to go. A little chrome, strategically placed, is fine. A mirror-like chrome face is not. In the details and the bigger picture, then, Detroit needs to pick up the pace. A return of "coke bottle" styling (already initiated by Audi on the A5) would evoke the past, as would subtle fins (call them "sight lines", as Mercedes once did) and tasteful (?) chrome accents. Aggressive stances and clean silhouettes would point to the future. The moment in which to begin this revolution in styling is upon us.

An American car must be, in the traditionally held view, a power-house. The Big Three are starting to recognize this again, and are also slowly realizing that power and engine size aren't necessary related. After building the insipid 3.8L "3800 Series" V6 engine for years and years, GM is equipping its new Buicks with more interesting power plants: the 2011 Regal will have a 2.0L turbo four-cylinder, mated to a six speed manual gearbox. Ford has discovered turbocharging, and the 3.5L "EcoBoost" (rated at 365hp, I believe) is now available in the Taurus and the Lincoln MKS. A new 5.0L V8 has arrived for the Mustang, and even Chrysler is bringing to the game its new "Pentastar" six cylinder engines. All told, the Americans are now making some excellent mid-sized and large engines. "But what about the environment?", you say at this point. Well, it is common knowledge that electric engines produce 100% torque of the mark. Imagine a "green" AWD Taurus (or RWD Aussie Falcon, as I'd have it) with the 5.0L V8 and/or a peppy electric assist. Impressive, no? Even I would consider buying one. Through turbo-charging, performance hybrids, and the use of efficient V6 and V8 motors, the Big Three can once again build affordable cars that have power to spare.

Since the 1990s, the American manufacturers have come light-years in terms of build quality. I recall our old Chrysler New Yorker having faux-wood trim throughout the interior; on two of the doors, the trim panels simply fell off. This was, apparently, a common problem on late 1980s and early 1990s Chryslers. With the exception of the Cadillac CTS, I have been quite impressed with the interior fit-and-finish on all the latest models launched by Chrysler, FoMoCo, and the General ("latest" generally denoting 2008 and later; including but not limited to the following: new Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan/Lincoln MKZ, Ford Taurus/Lincoln MKS/Ford Flex/Lincoln MKT, Chevrolet Malibu, Buick LaCrosse, Buick Regal, Chevrolet Equinox/GMC Terrain, and the late Pontiac G8.) The plastics are still a little hard, and the edges are occasionally a little rough, but every indicator represents a giant step in the right direction from the terrible cabins found in many American cars ten years ago (e.g., 2000-2005 Pontiac Bonneville.) When the doors of a Chrysler shut with the same assured sound as the doors of Honda Accord, and when the cabin of a Lincoln blocks out noise as well as that of a BMW, the American forces will have been victorious. The Big Three have come a long way. Up the quality, improve the names, inject the styling with excitement, and the revolution will be complete.

CIAS 2010: Perceptions

A good friend and I attended CIAS 2010 (Canadian International Auto Show) recently. We spent most of our time looking at practical, realistic cars (there was more time spent at the Honda booth than at Ferrari, Maserati, and Lamborghini put together), and here are some of the conclusions I came to (with the aid of a complex 1-10 rating system.)

"LIKES" -- My favorites, cars that impressed me beyond my expectations, designs that were particularly well executed.

1. Lincoln MKS -- I was drawn back to this car. The clean exterior styling and comfortable, slightly conservative interior were very much to my liking. I liked the comfortable seats, the use of real wood in the cabin (as opposed to plastic), and the use, overall, of fairly high quality materials. I would nitpick a few things with Ford -- like the fact that the latest big Lincoln isn't rear-wheel drive and doesn't have a proper V8 -- but overall the split-wing wonder was a pretty slick addition to the showroom floor.

2. Buick Regal GS -- If you thought the Lincoln MKS carried a brand stigma, "you ain't seen nothin' yet." The Regal, however, promises to resurrect Buick. Based on the excellent Opel Insignia, the GS model shown at CIAS will be available with a 2.0L turbo engine and a 6-speed manual (!) On a Buick (!) It looks great too.

3. Hyundai Genesis -- Hyundai's "luxury" sedan had seats that were easily on par with those in the Mercedes-Benz S500 and doors that shut out noise better than those on the BMW 535i. The exterior styling is forgettable, but the cabin is really excellent. Plus, the Genesis comes with, unusually in this day in age, a 4.6L V8 and native RWD.

4. Volvo S80 T6 -- In my quest for well-made interior components, the S80 delivered: the arm-rest action is very well engineered. I've always liked this car; it seemed to be about the right size from every angle, and was quite comfortable for both the driver and front/rear passengers. If I had to buy one, I'd get the top-end version with AWD and the 4.4L V8.

5. Mercedes-Benz CLS -- this car, the least practical in the world, has been on sale for a long time now, but I still like its flowing lines and coupe-like stance. The interior was a little forgettable (as in most Mercedes, I found), but there was more room than I had expected.

Honorable mentions: Chrysler 300C (much better than I expected it to be, and great value for money); BMW 535i (a nicely made car, but likely not worth the $70k asking price); redesigned Ford Fusion Sport/Mazda 6 (both competent mid-size sedans, but each with very different strengths and weaknesses); Hyundai Elantra Touring (the interior felt cheap, but, like most Hyundais, this compact wagon/hatchback represents fantastic value for money); Jaguar XJ "L" (gorgeous styling, brilliant interior that we weren't supposed to sit in, hefty price tag.)

"DISLIKES" -- My least favorite cars on the floor. These either fell extremely short of my expectations or were just plain bad, or both.

1. Cadillac CTS (all models) -- I'm sure these cars are as mechanically excellent as GM says they are, but the astoundingly bad interior fit and finish made the inflated premium price-tag look ridiculous.

2. Toyota Prius -- I love the planet too, but the tree-hugging (?) Prius has an interior fitted with some of the cheapest, ugliest hard-touch plastics I've seen in a long time. Maybe next time, Toyota.

3. Lincoln MKT -- I wanted to like the unusual MKT, I really did, but the car's undoing for me came when the only way I could sit at all upright in the third-row seat was if the tailgate was open. If you're going to have third row seats, make the car high enough so that normally sized people can sit in them!

4. BMW 330d -- The quintessential yuppie uniform felt to me, on the inside at least, more than a little like the quintessential '90s Pontiac or Chevrolet. The cabin design didn't look well-considered, and there was more hard-touch plastic than I would've hoped to find on a $45,000 car.

5. Ford Taurus -- As with the MKT, I really wanted to like the Taurus. The so-so interior quality, claustrophobic back seat (not something you should find on a car only marginally smaller than Buckingham Palace) and terrible rear sight lines made me quite disappointed in Ford's newest large car. Interestingly, as I've noted, I loved the MKS, which is basically a luxurious derivative of the Taurus.

Dishonourable mentions: Lincoln Navigator (the '90s are over: crass, conspicuous consumption isn't cool anymore); Kia Rio (very few redeeming qualities, but that's what everybody expects so some slack must invariably be cut); Land Rover Range Rover Sport (a proper Range Rover should be able to ford the Amazon without difficulty; the Sport model looks more at home on the shores of the Hudson); Dodge Avenger/Chrysler Sebring (stay away unless you like hard-touch plastics, poorly fitted panels, and tinny-sounding doors); Acura ZDX (Stylish wrapping makes for a rather spatially tight interior.)

Those are my perceptions, at least. Feel free to comment.

Cheers!

Saab's new direction

Under the ownership of the quixotic Spyker, Saab has been given a (hopefully) new lease on life. As Saab or as Saab-Spyker, the iconic, quirky Swedish automaker will, at least in the long term, survive. Seeing as Saab is one of my favorite car companies, all this news makes me quite happy. Now, Saab has announced that a new 9-3 will be on the market for 2012. Seeing as the 9-3 is Saab's big seller, many hopes will be riding on the success and reception of this car. The question is begged, what direction should Saab take in the development of this car?

For starters, the compact Saab ought to be a hatchback. In my opinion, the introduction of the (otherwise excellent) Saab 9-3 sedan in 2003 did much to dilute the purity of the brand. The properly classic Saabs -- the 96, 99, 900, and 9000 - were all versatile, sporty hatchbacks. Saab ought to return to its functional roots with the third-generation 9-3. So, in addition to being a hatchback, the Mk3 9-3 also ought to be, like all proper Saabs, turbocharged and driven fundamentally by its front wheels. The iconic 2.3 litre turbo engine must be utilised. A 2.0t version would also be offered, and the 2.8t V-6 would be available on higher-end Aero models. A proper manual would be the most commonly optioned transmission choice. Beyond these surface details, the "soul" of the 9-3 would need to be connected, spiritually at least, to that of the classic Saabs of yore. Some things about the car would need to be, to say the least, a little different from what one might expect to find on an A4 or a TSX. The engine would need to be mounted back-to-front, or perhaps the power seat controls could be somewhere really unusual (a drop-down panel from the roof, say.) Most importantly however, the new 9-3 would have to be a car designed with functionality and driving pleasure in mind. When the original Saab 900 was introduced, it came fitted with a dashboard that placed the car's most essential features within the easy, convenient reach of the driver. The oft-used radio was placed front and center on the console; the gauges were large and easy to read. A return for Saab to this clean, simple philosophy of design would be a pleasure to witness. The "cockpit" design of early Saabs is functional and deserves to survive. Tradition without innovation, however, is a dangerous thing. HUD systems and all the latest techno-gadgets would be, needless to say, essential. Overall, Saab must make a return to building cars, and specifically interiors that are functional, simple, innovative, and, most-importantly, well assembled. When Saab makes this transition away from the bad habits acquired by the 9-3 and post-2006 9-5 (while under the ownership of General Motors) , then the Griffin will have truly returned to its roots and, in doing so, forged a brave new path into the future.